On Jul 13, 12:08*pm, John Barnard wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:14 am, Dave wrote:
- - RHF wrote:
- -
- - RHF Replies : Dave - No !
- - More Drilling in the USofA ia Helping Every Day and
- - in US States like North Dakota : New Oil Wells are
- - Creating New Millionaires right here in the US
- - versus- Enriching the Saudis and Funding Al Qaeda
- - and the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorists.

- WTF is an "Islam-O-Fascist"?

-wrt- Islamofascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

- Conservation is the only way to quickly reduce prices.
- Period.

Dave - 'Increased Supply' and 'Reduced Demand'
is the only way to permanently Reduce Prices [.]

The one thing that personal 'conservation' does is to
Reduce your overall Personal {out-fo-pocket} Cost to
You in the Short Term.

OLD - You Driving 600 Miles @ 20MPG and using 30 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $120 for Gas.

NEW - You Driving 450 Miles @ 20MPG and using 22.5 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $90 for Gas.

RESULT - Your personal Reduction of 150 Miles Driven
by 25% results in a Personal Cost Savings of 25% ~$30
per Week.

The ONLY WAY Conservation Works : Is When It Is Done
Equally By All : That Takes Some Form of Mandatory
Restrictions {Rationing} on Gas Use Age for All Drivers.

You are wrong. *Raising prices forces conservation just as well as
some stupid rule.

* Conservation does not result in independence.

*Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.

* *Not if you own the resource.

I assume that you've never been out to the tar sands . And if you need
to go out of your way to exploit something then you are still addicted
to it. And some may question the wisdom of having a oil rigs in an area
of considerable tectonic activity.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Q...rs_1963-98.png
-
- JB

Mother Nature Says : There Is A Whole Lot Of Shaking Going On !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM

On Jul 13, 5:47*am, harvey wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:14*pm, Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

RHF Replies : Dave - No !

More Drilling in the USofA ia Helping Every Day and
in US States like North Dakota : New Oil Wells are
Creating New Millionaires right here in the US
-versus- Enriching the Saudis and Funding Al Qaeda
and the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorists.

WTF is an "Islam-O-Fascist"?

Conservation is the only way to quickly reduce prices. *Period.

Agree.. Don't Drive if you don't have to.

ride a friggin bike fer crist sake,

Buy 2700 K *Compact Florescent Bulbe

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...vement/4215199...

- - and immediatly Drill Off shore..
-
- tow a rig out there, stick a pipe down
-
- up comes Gasoline
-
- ( & Then Exxon Sells it to The Highest Bidder )

First Law of All American Energy Independence :
No Selling of American Oil Abroad [.]

On Jul 13, 6:59*am, Bob wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:44*am, D Peter Maus wrote:





Dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:14 am, Dave wrote:
- - RHF wrote:
- -
- - RHF Replies : Dave - No !
- - More Drilling in the USofA ia Helping Every Day and
- - in US States like North Dakota : New Oil Wells are
- - Creating New Millionaires right here in the US
- - versus- Enriching the Saudis and Funding Al Qaeda
- - and the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorists.

- WTF is an "Islam-O-Fascist"?

-wrt- Islamofascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

- Conservation is the only way to quickly reduce prices.
- Period.

Dave - 'Increased Supply' and 'Reduced Demand'
is the only way to permanently Reduce Prices [.]

The one thing that personal 'conservation' does is to
Reduce your overall Personal {out-fo-pocket} Cost to
You in the Short Term.

OLD - You Driving 600 Miles @ 20MPG and using 30 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $120 for Gas.

NEW - You Driving 450 Miles @ 20MPG and using 22.5 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $90 for Gas.

RESULT - Your personal Reduction of 150 Miles Driven
by 25% results in a Personal Cost Savings of 25% ~$30
per Week.

The ONLY WAY Conservation Works : Is When It Is Done
Equally By All : That Takes Some Form of Mandatory
Restrictions {Rationing} on Gas Use Age for All Drivers.

You are wrong. *Raising prices forces conservation just as well as
some stupid rule.

* Conservation does not result in independence.

There is not enough oil in the USA to make us "independent". *Let the
Chinese have the muck, we can go virtually all-electric (including cars)
within a decade. *Now would be a good time, as the economy's in the
****ter anyway.

* *There is more oil just off shore of the US than all of OPEC combined.
Off California it's being pushed through the silt on the ocean floor and
floating to the surface at Oily Point...named by the native Indians more
than 400 years ago.

* *There is so much very old petroleum under the Gulf it's pushing
through the silt and pooling on the Gulf floor.

* *Off Florida, there is more oil under the ocean floor that the Chinese
are setting up outside of our territorial waters to begin drilling in a
single deposit that our own facilities can access just a few miles offshore.

* *Yes, we have the oil.

* *As for electric cars...a great idea that's already seeing resistance
in several states. Wisconsin has banned them in 12 counties. With more
counties on the way. And several states are looking at placing enormous
restrictions on their us. California is one of them. Illinois is
another. Not just the NEV's that are starting to hit the market, but
electrics in general.

* *Why? To protect the tax stream. Wisconsin is the state that tells gas
station owners what they must charge for a gallon of gasoline, and
blocks discount promotions because the lower price reduces tax collection.

* *Conservation will not put a single gallon of gas on the market at a
lower price. Nor will it reduce demand, prices, or shortages.

* *Electric is definitely the way to go. I have no problem agreeing
there. Tesla has proven the technology exists to make a practical, if
expensive, electric car with good performance. But politics in these
matters are another matter.

* *As long as politicians have a say, electric cars are going to remain
the stuff of dreams. Get them out of the way, and a lot of things can
change.

The problem with electric cars is where the electricity comes from.
In hybrids, it comes from regen and that type of vehicle should have
been further tax "incentivised" and long term mandated by now.

If we all start plugging our cars into the grid, most of that
electricity comes from fossil fueled facilities, and under current
political climate any added generation would almost certainly be oil
or gas fired.

-*Nuclear is a dirty word, and so is any type of coal...
-
- Bob

Nuclear may be to Un-Safe to Use -but- It is Clean
-wrt- Air Polution.

Clean Coal when properly used is as Clean as Oil and Gas.

Co-Generation using Reclaimed Manufacturing Heat
can meet 15% of American's Electric Energy Needs.

Improved Hydro by Adding 100 Feet to most of the
Existing Dams in the USA could add to American's
Electric Energy Needs; plus better Flood Control;
and More Water for Agriculture and Humans.

~ RHF

Bob wrote:

The other concern is the losses in the grid distribution. We use oil
based fuels to generate electricity at a conversion loss...

True...no one has repealed the laws of thermodynamics. But please
realize that *nothing* is lossless. The point I was trying to emphasize
about electric vehicles is that you are centralizing pollution control
at a (relatively) few power plants rather than over millions of cars
with IC engines.

...and then lose more in line losses.

Not as much as you might think, at least not since AC won out over DC
transmission around the turn of the last century (Bless you Mr. Tesla,
Mr. Westinghouse). Power is sent at extremely high voltages (so lower
current) to minimize the I squared R (power) loss. And once again, the
whole point is centralization, acceptable losses notwithstanding.

It seems that the politicians and environmentalists aren't too
interested in other scientific input.

Bob, you don't know how right you are. The current Administration has
been notorious for ignoring science.

Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bob wrote:

The other concern is the losses in the grid distribution. We use oil
based fuels to generate electricity at a conversion loss...

True...no one has repealed the laws of thermodynamics. But please
realize that *nothing* is lossless. The point I was trying to emphasize
about electric vehicles is that you are centralizing pollution control
at a (relatively) few power plants rather than over millions of cars
with IC engines.

...and then lose more in line losses.

Not as much as you might think, at least not since AC won out over DC
transmission around the turn of the last century (Bless you Mr. Tesla,
Mr. Westinghouse). Power is sent at extremely high voltages (so lower
current) to minimize the I squared R (power) loss. And once again, the
whole point is centralization, acceptable losses notwithstanding.

It seems that the politicians and environmentalists aren't too
interested in other scientific input.

Bob, you don't know how right you are. The current Administration has
been notorious for ignoring science.

Yep, Bill Clinton was well known for being interested in science. :-)

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic39902.html

Produce more cars

sell them to China and India and Saudi Arabia

they all need gasoline

Price goes up.






On Jul 12, 4:25 am, RHF wrote:
Heard about it for the first time today 11 July 2008 while
Listening to the AM Talking Radio : The Picken's Planhttp://www.pickensplan.com/

How We Can Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil ?http://www.pickensplan.com/about/

About - T. Boone Pickens, Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens,_Jr.

The Pickens Planhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_Planhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens,_Jr.#The_Pickens_Plan

yes - i heard it on the radio ~ RHF
.

Bob wrote:

It seems that the politicians and environmentalists aren't too
interested in other scientific input.

Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bob, you don't know how right you are. The current Administration
has been notorious for ignoring science.

dxAce wrote:

Yep, Bill Clinton was well known for being interested in science. :-)

Um, that wouldn't have been the scientific study he did on cigar
flavorings, was it?

Billy Burpelson wrote:
...

Yup...nuclear is tough because the waste is so dangerous and lasts so
long. Now coal...well, that might not be too bad because you are working
with just hundreds or thousands of power plants; and scrubber and
precipitator technology has come a long way. It's waaay easier and safer
to store fly ash rather than nuclear waste.

Coal plants release more radiation than nukes.

In article ,
Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:


What about the crap you breath into your lungs on a regular basis? All
that tar, which is in far greater amounts that tobacco just to name one
thing Mr. Pipe smoker.

You keep this up and you will have to have carbon credits just to smoke
your dope.


You're insane.

I'm afraid that's your department.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:


Conservation does not result in independence.

Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.



Not if you own the resource.


What about CO2? What about the air? It's like we're squeezing our eyes
shut and flooring it...


.04% of the atmosphere. Against...well, the primary greenhouse gas in
the atmosphere is water. The proportions make the claims more than
preposterous.